Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
`Daniel A. Rozenblatt (SBN 336058)
`daniel@edge.law
`Seth W. Wiener (SBN 203747)
`seth@edge.law
`1341 La Playa Street 20
`San Francisco, CA 94122
`Telephone: (415) 515-4809
`
`CAPSTONE LAW APC
`Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)
`tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
`Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)
`cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
`Laura E. Goolsby (SBN 321721)
`laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
`1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 556-4811
`Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Rodney Carvalho
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RODNEY CARVALHO, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`HP INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Rodney Carvalho (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated, brings this action against Defendant HP Inc. (“HP”). Upon personal knowledge as to his
`own acts and status and upon information and belief as to all other matters, Plaintiff alleges the
`following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This is a class action against HP for false advertising on its website, HP.com. HP is
`the largest computer seller in the United States. To sell more products and maximize its profits, HP
`displays false reference prices on its website and advertises false savings based on those prices.
`The reference prices are false because they do not represent the actual prices at which HP regularly
`sells its products. The savings are false because they do not represent the actual savings obtained
`by customers. This unlawful marketing practice, commonly known as false reference pricing,
`artificially increases demand for HP products and induces customers to pay more for them based on
`a false impression of their value. HP’s use of false reference prices and false savings is pervasive
`throughout its website.
`2.
`California law and federal regulations specifically prohibit this type of false
`advertising. For example, California’s consumer protection statute prohibits “[m]aking false or
`misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions.”
`Civ. Code § 1770(a)(13). California’s false advertising law prohibits advertising a former price
`unless it was the prevailing market price during the previous three months. Bus. & Prof. Code §
`17501. As explained in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Guide Against Deceptive Pricing,
`[When] the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious—for example,
`where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the
`subsequent offer of a large reduction—the “bargain” being advertised is a false one;
`the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects.
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.1.
`3.
`HP willfully violates these laws. For example, on September 7, 2021, Plaintiff
`purchased an All-in-One desktop computer on HP’s website. HP advertised the computer as being
`on sale for $899.99 and represented to customers that they would “Save $100 instantly” off the
`regular price of $999.99, which was displayed in strikethrough typeface (e.g., $999.99). Below is a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`screenshot of Plaintiff’s computer, as advertised on HP’s website the day Plaintiff made his purchase.
`
`September 7, 2021
`
`
`4.
`At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff believed he was buying a computer that was
`valued at and regularly sold for $999.99. But discovery will show that in the weeks and months prior
`to Plaintiff’s purchase, HP rarely, if ever, offered his computer for sale at the advertised reference
`price of $999.99. Indeed, pricing data compiled by Plaintiff’s counsel demonstrates as much:
`
`Advertised Prices of Plaintiff’s Computer on HP.com
`
`Date
`4/29/2021
`5/29/2021
`6/29/2021
`7/29/2021
`8/29/2021
`9/29/2021
`
`Ref. Price
`$999.99
`$999.99
`$999.99
`$999.99
`$999.99
`$999.99
`
`5.
`By using false reference prices to artificially increase the perceived value of HP
`products, HP harms consumers by inducing them to pay more for its products and make purchases
`they would not have otherwise made.
`
`Sale Price
`$899.99
`$899.99
`$899.99
`$899.99
`$899.99
`$899.99
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`6.
`HP’s false reference prices also harm competition by giving HP an unfair advantage
`over other computer manufacturers that do not engage in false reference pricing. After all, a
`customer is more likely to purchase a $2,000 computer advertised at 50% off its regular price than
`pay full price for a $1,000 computer.
`7.
`In addition to using false reference prices, HP also falsely advertises limited-quantity
`and limited-time offers. For example, on May 28, 2021, HP featured Plaintiff’s computer in the
`“Weekly Deal” section of its website and advertised there was “Only 1 Left!” Yet in the weeks and
`months that followed, HP continued to sell Plaintiff’s computer but removed any representations
`about the supposed limited quantity.
`
`May 28, 2021
`
`June 4, 2021
`
`
`
`8.
`In another effort to artificially increase demand for its products, on September 28,
`2021, HP advertised Plaintiff’s computer for $899.99 as part of a “72 Hour Flash Sale.” At the top
`of the screen, HP displayed a banner that stated, “Get limited time deals on select products” and
`“Hurry! This sale ends in:” above a live countdown timer. Below is an example of a screenshot
`that was taken on September 28, 2021, at 3:07 p.m., indicating the sale would end in 8 hours, 52
`minutes, and 31 seconds.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`September 28, 2021
`
`
`9.
`But the sale did not end in 8 hours, 52 minutes, and 31 seconds. Instead, HP merely
`removed the flash sale marketing from its website and continued to sell Plaintiff’s computer at the
`same price and discount, as shown below.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`10.
`Indeed, instead of increasing the price of Plaintiff’s computer after the flash sale
`ended, HP simply invented a new sale—the “HP Days” sale. Below is an example of a screenshot
`taken from HP’s website on October 3, 2021, five days after the flash sale ended. As shown below,
`HP continued to advertise Plaintiff’s computer at the same price and discount of $899.99, $100 off
`the reference price of $999.99.
`
`October 3, 2021
`
`
`11.
`Discovery will show that HP’s flash sales and other limited-time offers are merely
`falsehoods intended to induce prospective customers to make purchases they would not have
`otherwise made and pay more for HP products based on a false impression they are getting a special
`deal.
`
`12.
`HP advertises false reference prices, false discounts, and fake-limited time offers for
`hundreds of products on its website every day. The pervasive, ongoing nature of its deceptive
`pricing scheme demonstrates that false reference pricing is central to its overall marketing strategy.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`In bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff intends to curb these and other unlawful and deceptive advertising
`practices on HP’s website and seeks compensation for himself and all others similarly situated who
`have been duped by HP’s false advertising.
`THE PARTIES
`13.
`Plaintiff Rodney Carvalho (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. On
`September 7, 2021, Plaintiff accessed HP’s website from his residence and purchased a computer
`and mouse from HP for personal use.
`14.
`Defendant HP Inc. (“HP”) is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
`business at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304. HP sells computers and related
`peripheral parts, software and services to customers throughout the United States through its
`website, HP.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`15.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), because the aggregate claims of the members of the proposed
`Classes exceed $5 million (exclusive of interest and costs), the proposed Classes consist of 100 or
`more members, and at least one member of the proposed Classes is a citizen of a different state than
`HP.
`
`16.
`California has personal jurisdiction over HP because HP has its principal place of
`business in California and is thus subject to general jurisdiction in California.
`17.
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`(b)(1) and (2) because HP resides in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions
`which give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`18.
`Pursuant to the Northern District of California’s Local Rule No. 3-2(e), assignment
`of this matter to the San Jose Division is appropriate because a substantial part of the events or
`omissions which give rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in Palo Alto, California, which is
`located in Santa Clara County.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`19.
`HP is a $56.6 billion Fortune 500 company headquartered in Palo Alto, California.1
`It is the largest computer manufacturer in the United States and the second largest in the world. In
`the second quarter of 2021 alone, HP shipped over 4 million PCs to the United States and had a
`28.4% market share of the U.S. market.2 HP’s customers include individual consumers, small to
`medium-sized businesses, state and federal governments, K-12 and higher education organizations,
`and large corporations.
`20.
`HP does not have any physical retail stores in the United States. Instead, HP
`markets and sells its products and services directly to customers through its website, HP.com. In
`August 2021, HP’s website received over 80 million visits, of which approximately 28% originated
`from the United States.3
`21.
`HP’s online success has in significant part resulted from its use of false reference
`prices, false discounts, and fake limited-time offers.
`A.
`
`HP’s Pricing Scheme
`22.
`HP creates an illusion of savings on its website by advertising false reference prices
`and false discounts based on those prices.
`HP perpetrates this scheme by advertising a reference price—i.e., the product’s full,
`23.
`non-discounted price—which it typically displays in strikethrough typeface (e.g., $999.99).
`Adjacent to the reference price, HP advertises a sale price, which is the price at
`24.
`which the product is currently offered for sale. HP typically displays the sale price in larger, bolder
`font, often using a contrasting color.
`Throughout its website, HP also advertises discounts or savings, which are typically
`25.
`displayed as a dollar amount equal to the difference between the reference price and the sale price.
`
`
`1 Source: https://investor.hp.com/news/press-release-details/2020/HP-Inc.-Reports-Fiscal-2020-Full-
`Year-and-Fourth-Quarter-Results/default.aspx.
`2 Source: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-07-12-gartner-says-
`worldwide-pc-shipments-grew-4-point-six-in-second-quarter-of-2021.
`3 Sources: https://www.semrush.com/analytics/traffic/journey/hp.com;
`https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/hp.com.
`
`
`
`-7-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`HP prominently displays the purported discounts on its website together with words or phrases such
`as “Save,” “You’ll Save,” and “You Saved.”
`26.
`Below are examples of how HP advertises false discounts on its website.
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`After customers click the button to buy a product, HP directs them to additional
`pages where they can customize and add accessories to their order. As shown below, on each of
`these pages, HP prominently displays the reference price, the sale price, and the savings customers
`are purportedly receiving.
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`
`28.
`Once customers reach the page displaying their online shopping cart, HP again
`displays the reference price, sale price, and savings. As shown below, to induce a sale, HP
`purposely draws its prospective customers’ attention to the amount of savings by displaying the
`amount in bold font on a contrasting blue background.
`
`
`
`
`29. When customers proceed to check out, they are directed to pages where they can
`enter their information and review their order. On each of these pages, HP again falsely promises
`customers savings equal to the difference between the reference price and sale price. These
`“savings” are part of the contract that is entered into between HP and its customers and part of the
`bargain that is struck between them. Below is an example of these representations that are made to
`customers at the time they place their order.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`
`30.
`After customers place their order, the promised savings are confirmed on a web page
`on HP’s website and memorialized in an email HP sends to customers after receiving their order.
`
`Website Confirmation
`
`Email Confirmation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`B.
`
`HP’s False reference prices and False Discounts
`31.
`Discovery will show that on any given day, HP offers for sale approximately 350
`different laptop and desktop computers on its website, and advertises approximately 35% of those
`computers at a discount from a reference price. But discovery will show that the majority of the
`reference prices are false and misleading because they do not represent the actual prices at which
`the computers were sold or offered for sale for a reasonably substantial period of time.
`32.
`HP’s pricing scheme is misleading because the savings advertised on its website
`(which are based on the advertised reference prices) do not represent the actual savings customers
`receive, as Plaintiff and reasonable consumers understand that term. Moreover, HP’s reference
`prices violate California law because they do not reflect the prevailing market prices of the products
`in question during the three-month period immediately preceding their publication.
`33.
`For example, on March 27, 2021, HP advertised an HP ENVY Laptop, part number
`19T04AV_1 (“Envy Laptop”) on its website. HP offered the laptop for sale for $799.99 and
`represented to customers they were saving of $150 off the reference price of $949.99.
`
`March 27, 2021
`
`
`34.
`Yet, pricing data compiled by Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that in the weeks and months
`that followed, HP rarely, if ever, sold the Envy Laptop at the advertised reference price of $949.99.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`Advertised Prices of Envy Laptop on HP.com
`Date
`Ref. Price
`Sale Price
`3/27/2021
`$949.99
`$799.99
`4/24/2021
`$949.99
`$849.99
`5/24/2021
`$949.99
`$829.99
`6/24/2021
`$949.99
`$799.99
`7/24/2021
`$949.99
`$799.99
`8/24/2021
`$949.99
`$749.99
`9/24/2021
`$949.99
`$749.99
`
`
`
`35.
`Pricing data collected by Plaintiff’s counsel for hundreds of computers advertised on
`HP’s website over the course of more than three months indicates that a significant percentage of
`computers sold on HP’s website are offered at discounted prices more often than they are offered at
`their reference prices. For example, below are charts reflecting the reference price and sale price of
`twelve different laptop and desktop computers, as advertised on HP’s website for a period of more
`than three months. As shown, the sale price of these products rarely, if ever, equals the reference
`price.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`36.
`HP’s use of false reference prices is not limited to computers. HP also advertises
`false reference prices for its monitors, printers, accessories, and warranties. For example, the charts
`below reflect the reference and sale prices of eight non-computer products advertised on HP’s
`website for a period of more than three months. As shown, the sale price of these products rarely, if
`ever, equals the reference price.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 16 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`HP’s Fake Limited-Time Offers
`37.
`In addition to advertising false reference prices and false discounts, HP further
`misrepresents that the discounts are available only for a limited time and fails to disclose the
`continuing nature of these discounts. By giving potential customers the false impression that they
`will miss out on the advertised markdowns if they do not make a purchase soon, HP induces
`customers to make purchases they would not have otherwise made and pay more for HP products
`than they would have otherwise paid. Additionally, by imparting a false sense of urgency on
`prospective customers, HP deters them from shopping at competitor websites.
`38.
`For that reason, the FTC’s Guide Against Deceptive Pricing provides:
`[Retailers] should not offer an advance sale under circumstances where they do not in
`good faith expect to increase the price at a later date, or make a “limited” offer which,
`in fact, is not limited. In all of these situations, as well as in others too numerous to
`mention, advertisers should make certain that the bargain offer is genuine and truthful.
`
`16 C.F.R. § 233.5.
`39.
` HP employs a variety of means to impart this false sense of urgency on potential
`customers. One way is by featuring products in the “Weekly Deals” section of its website, which
`suggests that the advertised markdowns will expire at the end of the week. HP lures potential
`customers to its Weekly Deals by displaying a red banner at the top of its website.
`
`
`40.
`In reality, the Weekly Deals frequently last much longer than a week. For example,
`on May 13, 2021, HP advertised a Spectre X360 Convertible Laptop, part number 9AJ99AV_1
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 17 of 44
`
`
`
`(“Spectre X360”), in the Weekly Deal section of its website. As shown below, the laptop was
`advertised as being on sale for $899.99, $150 off the reference price of $1,049.99.
`May 13, 2021
`
`
`41.
`By featuring the Spectre X360 in the Weekly Deal section of its website, a
`reasonable consumer is thus led to believe that the advertised discount will last only a week.
`However, at the end of the week, HP continued to advertise the Spectre X360 at the same price and
`discount and continued to do so for several more weeks to come.
`
`May 20, 2021
`
`May 27, 2021
`
`June 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 18 of 44
`
`
`
`42.
`Indeed, despite advertising the price of $899.99 as a “Memorial Day Special” on
`May 27 and June 3, as shown above, HP continued to sell the Spectre X360 for $899.99 through
`July 19, 2021. (For reference, Memorial Day was on May 31.) On July 19, HP increased the price
`of the Spectre X360 by $50 but still continued to sell it for less than the advertised reference price,
`as shown below.
`
`
`43.
`In addition to advertising fake Weekly Deals, HP also uses fake flash sales to
`deceive customers about the duration of its discounts. For example, on May 5, 2021, HP advertised
`an HP Envy All-in-One, part number 3UQ84AA#ABA (“Envy All-in-One”), for $1,999.99 as part
`of a “1 Day Flash Sale” and represented to customers they would “Save $400” off the reference
`price of $2,399.99. At the top of the screen, HP displayed a banner that stated, “Get limited time
`deals on select products” and “Hurry! This sale ends in:” above a live countdown timer. Below
`is an example of a screenshot that was taken on May 5, 2021 at 8:42 p.m., indicating the sale would
`end in 3 hours, 17 minutes, and 7 seconds, which corresponded to midnight.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 19 of 44
`
`
`
`May 5, 2021
`
`
`44.
`Reasonable consumers viewing this advertisement are thus led to believe that if they
`do not make a purchase within the specified time frame, they will miss out on the advertised savings
`of $400. But in fact, despite representing the sale would end at midnight on May 5, 2021, HP
`continued to advertise the Envy All-in-One at the exact same price the very next day, as shown
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 20 of 44
`
`
`
`May 6, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`Similarly, on multiple occasions Plaintiff’s computer was also advertised as part of a
`flash sale. For example, on June 11, 2021, HP advertised Plaintiff’s computer for $949.99 as part
`of a “2 Day Flash Sale” and represented to customers they would “Save $50” off the reference
`price of $999.99. Below is an example of a screenshot taken on June 11, 2021, depicting the flash
`sale.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 21 of 44
`
`
`
`June 11, 2021
`
`
`46.
`A reasonable consumer contemplating buying Plaintiff’s computer is thus induced to
`complete the purchase within 25 hours, 59 minutes, and 2 seconds, lest the consumer miss out on the
`discounted price of $949.99. In fact, the consumer would have been better off waiting until after the
`flash sale ended because, as shown below, later that month HP reduced the price even further to
`$899.99—fifty dollars less than the “flash sale” price.
`
`
`
`
`-20-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 22 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Purchase
`47.
`On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff accessed HP’s website from his residence in Las
`Vegas, Nevada, and purchased an HP All-in-One 24-dp1056qe PC, part number 20W59AA#ABA
`(“All-in-One PC”), and an HP X3000 G2 Wireless Mouse, part number 2C3M3AA#ABA (“G2
`Mouse”).
`48.
`HP advertised the All-in-One PC as being on sale for $899.99 and represented to
`Plaintiff that he would save $100 off the reference price of $999.99. HP additionally advertised that
`Plaintiff would receive an additional 5% off with the coupon code HP21LDS5 as part of a Labor
`Day sale.
`49.
`Enticed by the idea of paying less than the regular price and getting a $999.99
`computer for only $899.99 (minus an additional 5% off), Plaintiff proceeded to add the All-in-One
`PC to his shopping cart.
`50.
`After clicking the button to add the All-in-One PC to his shopping cart, Plaintiff was
`directed to a web page where HP advertised additional accessories for Plaintiff to purchase,
`including the G2 Mouse. HP advertised the G2 Mouse as being on sale for $11.99, $5.00 off the
`reference price of $16.99. Below is an example of the advertisement Plaintiff viewed after adding
`the All-in-One PC to his shopping cart.
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 23 of 44
`
`
`
`
`51.
`Enticed by the idea of paying less than the regular price and getting a $16.99 mouse
`for only $11.99 (minus an additional 5% off), Plaintiff added the G2 Mouse to his order.
`52.
`Plaintiff was then directed to his online shopping cart. In his shopping cart, HP
`represented to Plaintiff that he was saving $105.00 off the reference prices of the All-in-One PC
`and G2 Mouse by displaying “YOU SAVED $105.00 ON YOUR ORDER” on a contrasting blue
`background below his order total.
`53.
`Plaintiff then obtained an additional 5% off by entering the Labor Day coupon code
`HP21LDS5.
`54.
`Plaintiff was then directed to the checkout page where he input his contact
`information, shipping information, and payment information. On the checkout page, HP again
`represented to Plaintiff the amount he was saving on his order—now $168.60, due to the additional
`5% off and a free HP Stereo USB Headset valued at $18.00 that HP included in his order.
`55.
`After inputting his information, Plaintiff was directed to a final page where he could
`review and place his order. On the review page, HP again represented to Plaintiff he was saving
`$168.60 on his order.
`56.
`In reliance on HP’s representations and omissions with respect to the pricing of the
`All-in-One PC and G2 Mouse, the amount of savings he was purportedly receiving, and the limited-
`time nature of the advertised discounts, Plaintiff placed his order.
`
`
`
`
`-22-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 24 of 44
`
`
`
`57.
`Immediately after completing his purchase, HP directed Plaintiff to a web page
`confirming the amount he purportedly saved on his order. HP also sent Plaintiff an order
`confirmation via email, which confirmed that Plaintiff had saved $168.60 on his order—an amount
`equal to the sum of the differences between the reference prices and sale prices of the All-in-One
`PC and G2 Mouse ($145.00 and $5.60, respectively), plus the value of the HP Stereo USB Headset
`($18.00).
`
`
`58.
`Plaintiff purchased the All-in-One PC and G2 Mouse after HP had advertised them
`using false reference prices of $999.99 and $16.99, respectively. At the time, Plaintiff believed he
`was purchasing a computer valued at $999.99 for approximately 15% off and a mouse valued at
`$16.99 for approximately 33% off. Plaintiff believed $999.99 and $16.99 were the regular prices of
`his computer and mouse, and that they would be sold at those prices at the end of the Labor Day sale.
`59.
`However, discovery will show that prior to Plaintiff’s purchase, HP did not sell the
`All-in-One PC for $999.99 for a reasonably substantial period of time, if ever at all. Indeed, daily
`
`
`
`
`-23-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 25 of 44
`
`
`
`pricing data collected by Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that $999.99 was neither the prevailing price
`of the All-in-One PC during the three-month period immediately preceding Plaintiff’s purchase, nor
`during the one-month period after his purchase, as shown below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`60.
`Likewise, daily pricing data collected by Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that $16.99
`was not the prevailing price of the G2 Mouse during the three-month period immediately preceding
`Plaintiff’s purchase, as shown below.
`
`5
`
`
`† Data was not collected for four days in each of June, July, and August, and seven days in
`September.
`†† Data was not collected for ten days in June, six days in July, four days in August, and one day in
`September.
`
`
`
`-24-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 26 of 44
`
`
`
`61.
`Indeed, as of the filing of this complaint, HP continues to advertise the All-in-One
`PC and G2 Mouse using the false reference prices of $999.99 and $16.99, in clear violation of
`California law.6
`62.
`Plaintiff’s understanding of the value of the All-in-One PC and G2 Mouse was based
`on his belief that HP regularly sold them for $999.99 and $16.99, respectively, and that $999.99 and
`$16.99 represented their market values. HP thereby induced Plaintiff to purchase the All-in-One
`PC and G2 Mouse by falsely representing to him that he was saving a significant amount of money
`off their reference prices and by failing to disclose that the reference prices, which Plaintiff
`reasonably believed to be their regular prices, were not the actual prices at which HP formerly
`offered the products for sale for a reasonably substantial period of time. Plaintiff would not have
`purchased the All-in-One PC and G2 Mouse, or would have paid less for them, had he known that
`their true regular prices were less than the advertised reference prices and that the advertised
`savings were fictitious.
`63.
`Plaintiff desires to make purchases on HP’s website in the future and would make
`such purchases if he could be certain that the reference prices displayed on HP’s website represented
`the bona fide former prices of HP’s products and that the advertised savings represented the actual
`savings he would receive based on bona fide former prices.
`64.
`Plaintiff is susceptible to HP’s ongoing false advertising scheme because he cannot
`be certain whether HP has corrected its deceptive pricing practices. As such, without an injunction
`ordering HP to cease its deceptive pricing practices, Plaintiff is unable to rely on HP’s
`representations regarding the prices of its products when deciding whether to make future purchases
`on HP’s website.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`65.
`Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The Class and Consumer Subclass
`(“Classes”) are defined as follows:
`
`6 See https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-all-in-one-pc-24-dp1056qe and
`https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-x3000-g2-wireless-mouse, last visited October 13, 2021.
`
`-25-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-08015-NC Document 1 Filed 10/13/21 Page 27 of 44
`
`
`
`Class: All individuals and entities that, on or after October 13, 2017, purchased one
`or more HP products on HP’s website that were advertised as discounted from a
`reference price (i.e., a strikethrough price).
`
`Consumer Subclass: All members of the Nationwide Class who are “consumers”
`within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(d) and made their respective
`purchases on or after October 13, 2018.
`
`66.
`Excluded from the Classes are HP, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers,
`directors, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and employees, and all judges
`assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as